


Brevis Tractatus de Linguis Ancelsterrae Veterisque Regni, sive De Origine Muri

by Lleu



Category: Old Kingdom - Garth Nix
Genre: Epistolary, Gen, Historical linguistics, Pseudo-History
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-03-14
Updated: 2019-03-14
Packaged: 2019-11-17 19:33:14
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,279
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/18105008
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Lleu/pseuds/Lleu
Summary: Excerpt from the prologue to Professor N. Randisi’s controversial book on the history of the Northern Wall.





	Brevis Tractatus de Linguis Ancelsterrae Veterisque Regni, sive De Origine Muri

**Author's Note:**

  * For [shopfront](https://archiveofourown.org/users/shopfront/gifts).



> oh boy this was tough to write, but I think it turned out pretty okay. I know strictly speaking there’s no Latin in Ancelstierre/the Old Kingdom but I trust you’ll all assume that it’s representing an equivalently positioned scholarly language in Ancelstierre.
> 
> in any case: shopfront, I apologize for perhaps raising more questions about the origin of the border than I actually answered, but i hope you’ll enjoy both the (pseudo?)historical speculation and Prof. Randisi’s polemical attitude!
> 
> also thanks to J for her helpful comments on the structure.

_Auctora N. Randisi, Professora Universitatis Corverensis, Linguarum Linguisticorumque Studiorum Schola_

*

_Prologi excerptus:_

The division between Ancelstierre and the so-called “Old Kingdom” has been the subject of scholarly attention for at least a millennium, since the appearance of Rian of Bain’s _Super Murum_ , a rather fantastical account of his travels in the Old Kingdom.[1] Since Rian’s time, it has been, with few exceptions,[2] the unquestioned premise of all historical studies and speculation that the Wall reflects a more or less natural border between this country and our northern neighbors.  It is my intention in this all-too-brief book to challenge that assumption.

My primary evidence is simple — the common language that the inhabitants of both countries share. Although there are minor differences between the speech of Ancelstierrans and the speech of Northerners,[3] some of which I will address in the following, the fact that the two countries’ speech remains mutually intelligible, or intelligible with only minor difficulties, after so long a separation, strongly argues for a common origin of our two peoples. By applying modern developments in the linguistic sciences to these two language forms, I will make the following contentions:

  1. The common language of Ancelstierre and the Old Kingdom indicates that our two countries and their people descend from a common stock.
  2. The shared core vocabularies and grammatical structures of the language as used in both Ancelstierre and the Old Kingdom suggest that the origin of the language’s speakers is in Ancelstierre.
  3. A large portion of the lexical differences between Ancelstierran and Old Kingdom speech are attributable to an unknown substrate language that influenced the vocabulary of the Old Kingdom when its current inhabitants settled in that territory.
  4. The speech of the Old Kingdom, in common with other peripheral dialects,[4] reflects a number of archaic and obsolete features known from the Middle Ancelstierran period that modern Ancelstierran speech has since lost.
  5. _In fine_ , the dialect of the Old Kingdom is best analyzed as a peripheral dialect of modern Ancelstierran.



Certain of these contentions will seem presumptuous, especially, perhaps, to scholars from the Old Kingdom, should any of them read this. None, however, will seem as presumptuous as my final suggestion, building on my fifth contention above and intended as a provocation to further research.

Having established the relationship between the Old Kingdom dialect and modern Ancelstierran, I turn to recent archaeological work done in the northern districts of Ancelstierre, especially the inscriptions in both Primitive Ancelstierran and an unknown language[5] found in the troubled region around Forvale and Forwin Mill.[6] I will attempt to offer an interpretation of the unfortunately fragmentary texts of these inscriptions, on which basis I will make my most presumptuous assertion: the Wall is not, as is generally believed, a product of the Old Kingdom, designed to keep Ancelstierre out, but, in fact, a construction of Ancelstierran origin. This argument is supported by a careful review of historical documents about the northern border guard, fragmentary though they also are. There is no record to be found of the Old Kingdom’s side of the border being guarded; only Ancelstierre has chosen to guard the Wall, with Ancelstierran scouts making regular forays into the Old Kingdom itself. If the Wall had been built by the Old Kingdom, would it not have been guarded?

Seen in light of this historical evidence, the textual evidence from the Forvale region, and, crucially, the scientifically established linguistic evidence from the first part of the book, we can conclude that the Wall cannot be considered to reflect a natural boundary between two essentially different countries, but rather is a product of a later political division between our two lands. The fragmentary texts offer tantalizing hints of the circumstances that led to this division, but they raise as many questions as they answer. Who — whether or not we accept my contention that the Wall is of Ancelstierran origin — built the Wall? Why is its construction not a matter of historical record in Ancelstierre? For what purpose did they undertake what must have been a monumental engineering project, both for its scale and in light of how long it has lasted? What is its relationship with the frustrating phenomena endemic to the northern borderlands? 

All of these questions remain to be answered, but the underlying fact remains: the Wall itself is a result of historical processes that, like the development of both modern Ancelstierran and the Old Kingdom dialect, we can and should attempt to examine systematically, not only to better understand our past, but also to better understand our — and I include citizens of both Ancelstierre and the Old Kingdom in this — present and future.

Some of my readers, scholarly and otherwise, on both sides of the border are likely prepared to take up arms against me or, at least, to set pen to paper to disprove my arguments before they have even seen them. While I am prepared to be disproven should new evidence come to light, I offer this as my provocation to my colleagues: consider my argument fairly and _prove me wrong_.

I look forward to a fruitful debate in the years to come.

*

_Annotation from Third Assistant Librarian Daythell, Clary’s Library, on receipt of Professor Randisi’s monograph through the Bain Consulate: “While there are compelling aspects of Professor Randisi’s argument, our knowledge of the Old Kingdom’s history, the history of the establishment of the Great Charters, and the language of the Charter itself may lead us to question some of her conclusions, especially the suggestion that the Wall was constructed by residents of Ancelstierre, an argument she bases on fragments that any child in the Old Kingdom could easily identify. Her speculations about the historical contigency of the Wall may attract some interest, but ultimately her work’s strengths lie elsewhere._

_Despite the shortcomings in her historical argument — which, we should acknowledge, are largely a reflection of the limitations of her upbringing rather than a personal or scholarly failing —  her observations about the language of our two countries are sufficiently interesting that they would bear additional investigation on this side of the Wall._

_Recommended shelving: fourth spiral, languages, open collection.”_

* * *

 

[1] Rian of Bain has been extensively studied and I will not devote time to him here; see Lucas Cortrim’s excellent recent edition published by the Department of History at the University of Corvere for a detailed account of Rian and his reception by later scholars.

[2] Most notably Lucas Cortrim, to whose work and for whose guidance I am enormously grateful, and, in the previous century, the great Alania Nyris.

[3] I have been fortunate to be able to consult as part of my research with Northern citizens from a wider range of backgrounds than has typically been possible; for this and other services in the process of composing this book, I am indebted to the Consulate of the Old Kingdom in Bain.

[4] See, for example, Lowis Thursyon’s study of the speech of the Southeast District.

[5] Perhaps the substrate language that influenced the development of the Old Kingdom dialect, although that hypothesis must remain unverifiable until such time as the inscriptions can be deciphered. While the Old Kingdom Consulate in Bain was extremely helpful in most respects and I remain grateful to them for their contributions to my work, they proved reluctant to offer any assistance or insight on this front; it is my hope that by addressing this monograph to an audience in both countries I may be able to encourage other scholars on both sides of the border to assist in unraveling this mystery.

[6] See Felise Gaffick’s article in _Studies in Historical and Comparative Linguistics_ , volume 24, number 3.


End file.
